Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Can the US continue to be the POLICE of the WORLD? - VisualPolitik EN" video.

Now try imagining how this looks for a Latin American or Arab. Europe is pretty much the biggest beneficiary from US hegemony.
16
Democracy versus Dictatorships is nothing but PR rhetoric. The US has propped up and even helped install plenty of autocratic regimes of its own (Gautemale, Chile, etc.) as well as partnered with plenty of others, even including supporting their wars (Pakistan in Bagladesh, Indonesia in East Timor, KSA in Yemen, etc.). Even Taiwan and Korea were supported by America when they were still autocratic themselves. It's never had anything to do with regime type, US foreign policy makes far more sense if you just ditch the hypocritical claims and look at it the same way you do any other nations' foreign policy - as serving their national interests.
9
You don't get to ask other countries to 'step up to the plate' to implement YOUR agenda. That makes them little more than client states, and marks you even more nakedly as a hegemon. Other countries stepping up only means something if they get to pursue their own interests, else all it is is Americans spending less by palming off responsibility for maintaining their hegemony onto others.
9
@stuartbudgen1426 "Lucky we weren't more self serving in our foreign policy" - lmao! US foreign policy only makes sense if you see it as self-serving lol. Despite its rhetoric it has partnered with and even helped install plenty of autocratic regimes (Chile, Gautemala, etc.) as well as even supported some of their wars (Indonesia in East Timor, Pakistan in Bangladesh, KSA in Yemen, etc.). And who exactly do you think your 'policing of the worlds' oceans' is meant to protect from huh? Pirates? Nearly extinct, and easily handled even by second world navies never mind the US. Even the most famous recent ones - the Somalis - were taken care of by a multinational force without difficulty. Your navy isn't to 'police' the worlds' oceans, it's to overpower enemy country navies same as always. And the main 'free market world system' that you set up was the one that put your currency at the center, enabling you to print it infinitely. Also 'enable' India's growth? Lol, talk about being full of yourself. The US has had a very sketchy relationship with India over the decades, including sanctioning it and even intimidating it with its navy. They haven't 'enabled' shit, you just discount other nations' achievements in favor of imagining everything comes from America. As for growing 'warped' - bub India hasn't attacked anyone since independence, while the US has done so plenty of times despite being in no danger itself. Even China hasn't been to war in nearly half a century. Neither nation tries to claim credit for everything under the sun like you're doing here either. Sounds to me like the most 'warped' people are the Americans, drunk on their own hegemonic rhetoric. You say "don't get arrogant" when you're the most arrogant person here.
5
@vnolan633 I didn't. The US has certainly shafted Africa often enough, but not as much as Europe - and especially France - has. I consider France a bigger problem for Africa than the US, tho I could be wrong.
5
@succatash Bub you're only counting YOUR losses in the Afghan war lol. The death toll from that war is over 200k, and Iraq is even higher (which was almost entirely an American war btw, the only other significant contributor was the UK). And nice job pretending that Vietnam being a proxy war somehow makes it okay - 3 million people died in that proxy war fyi. Hell many see Ukraine as yet another proxy war, since there was little issue there until it suddenly turned to the west in 2014.
4
@succatash Where did you even get that number? It's certainly not what the UN reports, even multiplied ten times over. And even that still doesn't match the toll of the ME wars, for which was the aggressor (YOU) got off scot free. And nice job palming off blame for Vietnam lol. It wasn't your war, it was theirs. They weren't threatening you, so you had no business being there. As for Iraq, it was American. The only other large contingent came from UK, and the war was pushed for by the US.
4
@NickSteffen You people keep going on about "wolf warrior" diplomacy while being blind to your own. What do you call 'actual invasion diplomacy' huh? Can't get more 'wolf warrior' than that (meanwhile China hasn't been to war in nearly half a century). The most diplomatically aggressive nation on Earth is the US, both through the threat of military force and its myriad sanctions. But you just take that for granted while criticizing anyone else who speaks up. Talk about double standards. Oh and plenty of countries trust Russia and China more than they do the US. You just don't consider them, which speaks to your own biases. Africans may have misgivings about China, but nowhere near as much as they do the west, based on a mountain of history. Similarly India sees Russia as a far more reliable and amenable partner than America, also based on plenty of history.
3
@rs-dp6pr That's true, but pointing out hypocrisy is important nevertheless, precisely cos it subverts the narrative. The US keeps trying to pretend it serves higher goals than mere national interest, so it's of value to point out how that's not true.
3
@andrewmattox1233 China has said it'd invade Taiwan for over half a century, and done nothing about it. Instead it's Taiwans' largest trading partner lol. Contrast that with the US and Cuba, another island nation that made the mistake of aligning the enemy - for its trouble it was embargoed, blockaded and even invaded already, and sanctioned ever since (against almost universal global condemnation btw, even by US allies). The Taiwan issue began flaring up in 2017 - nothing changed in China. It changed in the US, specifically Trump came to power and launched an anti-China crusade, which his successor has kept up cos its was one of his legacies that actually caught on with the American public. Indeed there's more support for an immediate declaration of Taiwanese independence in America than in Taiwan itself - their own surveys show less than 10% of the people support that, not cos they love China, but cos they can't simply run away from all their problems like America can if things go bad (as it did with Afghanistan last year). Both the Taiwanese and the Chinese are patient, it's America that's upping the anti and thus putting the island at greater risk of war. They won't end the conflict, but they likely won't go to war (given the enormous difficulty) if the US doesn't drive them to. As for Ukraine, Russia didn't try to annex it until it shifted to the west in 2014 and started talking about joining NATO. They've similarly threatened other neighbors as well for expressing such sentiments. However much you tell yourself NATO is defensive, Russia ain't buying it, especially because of how dominated it is by America (they'd likely be far more comfortable with an EU force - with NO American involvement mind - than with NATO). Ditto with China. Hell in Brazil right now both leading candidates are expressing support for Russia - what do they have to do with the war? It's not cos they dislike Ukraine, it's cos they (and many others around the world) see it and other such conflicts with the west as being about American hegemony first and foremost.
3
@gvibration1 "China and India brought 1.5b people out of poverty in 20yrs" - which is their achievement, not America's. Taking credit for that is both arrogant and egoist.
3
No one appointed America as the world police fyi. America took that role onto itself, in order to cement its dominance. A true world police would be neutral and administered by the UN. As for the 'burden', it's your hegemony. You don't get to ask other countries to 'share the burden' to implement YOUR agenda. That makes them little more than client states, and marks you even more nakedly as a hegemon. Other countries stepping up only means something if they get to pursue their own interests, else all it is is Americans spending less by palming off responsibility for maintaining their hegemony onto others.
2
@NickSteffen Ah yes territory. The perennial excuse to let off America, as if war is somehow okay so long as it isn't a land grab (Russia has done non-land grab wars as well btw, I doubt you'd be defending those tho). America has already acquired all the territory it wanted, including through war btw (with Mexico, Hawaii, etc.), and has no ethnic diaspora to make claims on. It also has just two weak neighbors and is otherwise bordered by the oceans. In other words, the only nations less likely to launch wars over territory are island nations like NZ. In fact it's embarrassing that America actually does go to war as much as it does, as it has the least reason to. It's also one of the few nations in all of HISTORY to do expeditionary warfare i.e. war far away from one's borders (and most of the others were the former colonial powers). Most wars are border wars, for good reason. America has little reason to be at war as much as it does and yet it still finds reason to do so. You're right that reasons matters, and yours suck. As for trusting Russia and China, neither nation has the capacity to annex, say, Peru. America does. And even farther out than that, as we've often seen them do. The fact that America even can do that is telling. It spends not just more than anyone else on its military, it spends more than anyone else PER CAPITA (which adjusts for economy size) on its military. Russia isn't even in the top 20 per capita, while China is even further back, behind Azerbaijan lol. That says a lot about how militarized the US is, despite not claiming territory or facing any real threats to its home territory. For one thing, it shows that their military is hardly meant for defense, as militaries are supposed to be for, but for offense.
2
@NickSteffen Lol now you're just extending defense into offense and pretending that somehow makes it okay. In that case, Russia is also waging a war of defense, hell they even say so themselves. You've no place to criticize Russia if you're going to use that logic for your own wars. The US' territorial wars are old, and weren't marred by colonial interference after their early years. The rest of the world hasn't been so lucky, and Russia only recently lost a bunch of territory. Not to mention the lack of an ethnic diaspora, also unique to the US (look at how hard the UK fought to keep the Falklands from Argentina, and they're an island!). Most of the border conflicts in the world today, including some of China's, can be traced to European meddling. You've had well over a century to settle those scores. You take it for granted that Vietnam cooperates with you to counter China, yet they're doing it after losing over 3 million people because of you - and that's after barely half a century. You've had over 3 times longer, with way less interference and way more fortune at home (Americans tend to take their land for granted, not realizing just how gifted their territory is in terms of fertility, resources and security). Like I said, the very fact that you go to war at all is an embarrassment. Look at Canada to your north, that's what America should be.
2
@michaelwittkopp3379 Your 'lines in the sand' are rather conveniently self-serving. Your own wars never seem to violate that line, nor that of your allies (KSA in Yemen for instance). And ironically Pax Americana is partly the reason why Ukraine is even happening, as it will be with Taiwan as well. You think the Russians are concerned about Ukraine? Or China for Taiwan? Both of them are worried about America using those places against them than anything in the territories themselves. It's no accident that both places got more dangerous as they got closer to the west. And don't even bother with the dictator nonsense, as you yourself seem aware the US is hardly an exemplar of standing up for that stuff. Plenty of autocrats backed by and even installed by the US (Chile, Gautemala, etc.) and even have their wars supported by the US (Indonesia in East Timor, Pakistan in Bangladesh, KSA in Yemen, etc.). Even Taiwan and SK were autocracies fyi.
2
@headoverheels88 Only happy as long as they do the same thing that you're doing. You really want to encourage them? Then pull back from setting the agenda and let others shape it as befits them. Else why should they bother? It's not surprising that your list of nations you're happy to palm off the responsibility to don't include any that have other ideas of their own, even if they still have China as a rival.
2
Parenting? Lol, talk about condescending.
2
@sadcat6256 Bub I'm talking about their history with the US, not their culture. And as for 'aligning themselves with Russian or Chinese' society, what the hell is wrong with you people? How about aligning with themselves and charting their own path? What is it with you people and imagining the whole world must be dominated by one hegemon or another? Neither Russia nor China is capable of invading any Latin American nation, so why would they even bother aligning with them? It's your boot that needs to be removed, not theirs. You're the ones who spent the post-war period intervening and undermining their govts., or propping up dictators when it suited you, not the Chinese. What the US 'stands for' is its national interests, whatever the PR rhetoric they spew to justify it. And their history in Latin America is testament to that.
2
@lja996 Nope. It's just that China doesn't have the capacity to 'lead the charge'. They wouldn't be able to 'have their way', 'cept with their weak neighbors. The result is a multipolar world order rather than simply a different unipolar one. China wouldn't be able to force even South Korea to bow down, let alone Turkey or Brazil.
2
Bub the US has invaded loads of poor nations. They're hardly 'standing up for those who can't protect themselves'. They don't even do that for other people's wars, unless it suits them to do so, else they'd have ended Saudi Arabia and UAE's war in Yemen (which they were even involved in earlier). Take off those rose-colored glasses.
1
@NickSteffen Ukraine turned to the West before Russia seized Crimea - in fact the latter followed the former, as it was in direct response to it.
1
@Blondul11 I'm not in one of those countries. Russia has been a good partner for us, and indeed for most of their non-neighbours that they've had relations with. I've no illusions as to why, unlike you folks with the US. Russia can't exert force over distant nations, so it has to maintain good ties in order to preserve influence. China is similar. The US is not. Thanks to their extensive reach the US has never had to compromise, and hence its relations outside of its traditional allies have been fraught. It is that very imbalance of power that is the root of the problem. Even for Russia, whose insecurities stem from its position versus America. The only biased people here are those that blindly fall for the US' moralistic rhetoric. The rest of us don't live under such naive illusions, even for ourselves. The US isn't the worst nation on Earth, but its position of global hegemony makes it the biggest problem precisely because no nation should ever be in such a position, as it removes the guardrails that keep them in check (how come America's wars don't get sanctioned like this? Yeah, that's why). Ironically the very same thing that you people champion the US as the global police for, is the very reason why we oppose them having such unchecked power.
1
@Blondul11 Russia sent a list of terms before the war, which the west dismissed. Mostly the same stuff they've been asking for for over 30 years now, which the US had said (albeit not signed) it would respect, but didn't. No mention of energy, it was all about NATO.
1
@Blondul11 "How would you feel if let's say China says India should not have weapons any more?" - 'cept that that's a strawman comparison. Romania is free to have weapons, just not be part of a US military formation. Hell the Russians likely would even accept the EU forming its own military IF it came with kicking the US out. And this was not a new demand btw. In any case, my point was simply a refutation of yours - the Russians made it clear that a major reason for this war was NATO. They're already losing the European oil and gas market now, so what're they gaining from those underdeveloped fields? It's not that Russia is nice, it's that they increasingly have nothing to lose. It was merely a choice between a risky war versus a steady encirclement and decline. They'll never let the US have total supremacy over them, they'd rather go out in a blaze of glory than that - and it won't be the US that goes with them, it'll be you. Oh and btw, the US has done exactly what you say Russia expected you to do to its hostile neighbors. Take Cuba. Much like Taiwan, it committed the grave 'crime' of allying with and hosting enemy forces near the US. Unlike Taiwan, which hasn't been invaded yet and actually has China as its largest trade partner, Cuba was rewarded for that by being embargoed, blockaded, unsuccessfully invaded and sanctioned for over half a century now (against almost universal global condemnation btw). Or further afield, consider how the US is treating Iran, while indulgently letting Israel have what Iran cannot. And even further afield, they also subjected us to the same treatment - we were sanctioned by them before, for our weapons (yes not by China but America!). Even now they dangle laws like CAATSA over our, and many others, heads for the 'crime' of who we buy from. And the US did expand NATO. You can't join NATO simply by begging, they have to accept you. Just look at how Turkey, one NATO member, stalled Finland joining. France and Germany have always been circumspect about expanding NATO, but the alliance is dominated by America, who was all gung-ho about getting ever more nations under its wing. Hell they're even trying to get it to be part of their fight with China now. The US never has to deal with the consequences of their aggression, as it always happens in some other nation, and so have little to lose from expanding their reach as far as they can. I don't need Russian propaganda to tell me this - it's easy to see from their own history of wars and bases and military partnerships all over the world. You think it's a coincidence that nations as unlike each other as Russia, China, Iran, etc. ALL have a problem with America? By contrast, most of Russia's issues are along its border, past or present. "Are we not allowed to live in peace?" - you don't get peace by poking a bear, or a dragon for that matter. Does the world look more peaceful to you now? Finland had peace with Russia for over half a century, with no need for NATO. Taiwan wasn't looking it was going to be invaded soon until around 2017. Nothing changed in China then (Xi came to power in 2012), it changed in the US (Trump came to power and launched an anti-China crusade, which his successor has continued as Americans loved it). This is not how peace is kept. "because of Maidan, another Russian bullshit" - bro, even Wikipedia backs up that the Maidan revolution happened and what it represented. As does mountains of western media coverage. Does Russia control all of that as well now, all across the world? Whether it was encouraged by the US or was a genuine revolt, the result is the same
1
@Blondul11 Doesn't matter if it's a US coup or not, like I said the result is the same. And you guys don't understand the sentiment in the rest of the world, beyond Russia's borders. And illegitimate govts.? Who are you to say that? And don't parrot that dumb democracy versus dictatorships bs to me. Now who's spewing propaganda? The west has a long history of partnering with, propping up and even installing autocratic regimes all over the world when it suits them (they're even turning to a bunch of them now in order to offset the loss of Russian gas, so you're being hypocrites even now), such as in Chile and Gautemala. They've even done so when they go to war, such as with Indonesia in East Timor, Pakistan in Bangladesh, KSA in Yemen, etc. You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to making this moral bub.
1
@Blondul11 First off, you are NOT the moral arbiters of this world. You do NOT get to declare some nations as fair game just cos you don't agree with their ways and others as sacrosanct. Else you're no different from the Russians and have no place to claim what they're doing is wrong. You sound like a colonial politician now, you know that? They too pretended their regimes were for the 'benefit' of the natives i.e the infamous 'white man's burden'.What happens in those nations is their business, not yours, or did you forget that you people keep using the same argument for Ukraine's sovereignty? And since you seem ignorant of history, look up the Bay of Pigs attack. But besides that, the US sanctions on Cuba ever since have been denounced by almost the whole world, including most of its allies, yet they continue. And that's just one example - the US is by far the most sanction-heavy nation on Earth, including for reasons as flimsy as who nations trade with (CAATSA). You're talking about the country that not only isn't a signatory to the ICC, similar to Russia, but even has a law in place to literally attack the Hague should an American be tried there. And when they did try investigating the US for possible war crimes in Afghanistan, the US promptly sanctioned the ICC prosecutor.
1
@Blondul11 Was Germany going to leave NATO? No. More importantly, was NATO going to either contract or remove the US? No. Instead we next hear about Ukraine possibly joining at some point. And the US has bullied plenty of places through hard power as well. You Europeans like to think you're the center of the world, that your problems are world problems but the worlds' problems aren't yours. Do you even know there are even bigger wars going on right now? In Ethiopia, in Yemen, etc. Did you know the US used to be part of the latter, and it's still being committed by a US ally? Do you know the death tolls from the Afghan and Iraq wars? From Vietnam? From Operation Contra? How many special operations they've conducted around the world (that we know of)? How many nations they've sanctioned or threatened with sanctions, and how many starved because of it? You westerners sit there in your ivory towers coddled by America and imagine everything is right with the world as long as everything is right by you. No, you don't even comprise the majority of the worlds' nations, let alone its people. There's an entire world out there beyond your little corner of it - I've mentioned it over and over rather than simply going on about my own country. What about you? Just kept harping about Europe as if it's all that matters.
1
@rickjames18 Bub the war exists because of the US. The Taliban largely had control the country before that, so there wasn't as much fighting. Now they're back, so the war didn't even achieve anything apart from useless bloodshed. As for Russia invading Ukraine, it was preceded by Russia sending NATO a warning, which NATO dismissed. The terms in it were pretty much what Russia has been asking for for 30 years, to no avail. Instead NATO expanded, even before Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. There was little in that document about Ukraine, apart from insisting they not join. So they're left with a stark choice - either slowly see the American alliance surround and strangle it, or strike out and let the dice fall where they may. If they had been doing better than they are, you'd be more circumspect about further ramping up pressure. Same thing with China btw. You don't create peace by cornering your enemies, you instead make war more likely. Which, as even this video admits, is perfectly fine for America, since it's not their territory that suffers, while its enemies are weakened. Indeed France and Germany, who have far more of a stake in the region, have also been more circumspect about such a push over the years, as is Taiwan too (check their own polls and you'll see they're far from as much in a rush to declare independence as Americans seem to be, cos Americans have no skin in the game). Neither China nor Russia has attacked America, yet America made an enemy of them both regardless (opposing German ties to Russia, and encircling China). They can afford to, since every war America fights it makes sure it happens in someone else's backyard. Hell even Iran hates the US, and they have nothing in common with either China or Russia. More war will come as it continues to rattle its rivals, which suits the US just fine but will cost the victimized nations dearly. The 'New American Century' will be built on the blood of other nations, just as the last one was.
1
@mimisor66 Out of curiosity, are you one of those people who says 'freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences' on social media, in order to justify having people have their lives destroyed over a tweet or two? Cos it applies to all levels. It was also the right of, for example, Cuba to turn east. Guess how the US responded to that (embargo, blockade, invasion and sanctions fyi). It was the right of people's all across Latin America, the ME, Africa and SEA to have the govts. they did and align however they wished, but that didn't stop the US from changing regimes and waging wars all across those regions if they chose 'wrong'. Hell the US sanctions nations even for their own internal matters, even for 'crimes' as simple as who they trade with (CAATSA). Don't bother lecturing others on what rights nations do or don't have when you don't live by those rules yourselves. Hypocrites have no moral legitimacy.
1
@michaelwittkopp3379 Did you know there's been an even bigger UNGA vote against the US for decades? It's for a resolution condemning their sanctions on Cuba. Even the US' allies, with the notable exception of similarly inhumane Israel, voted for it. Didn't make one lick of difference, the US just continued with the sanctions anyway. A UNGA vote is just that. What matter is what you're willing to actually do for the issue. And the supposedly global sanctions have come from less than a quarter of the worlds' nations (most of whom are just the EU member states), representing even less of its people. Even China supports peace in Ukraine, are you going to pretend they're on your side? I said both lead candidates in Brazil aka their upcoming elections, not the current Brazilian leader. And Brazil doesn't hate Ukraine (so of course they don't support Russia invading it), for them and many others the issue isn't about Ukraine and so the pertinent question is how much support the western response to it has. It's possible to be against Russia's aggression AND the wests' reaction, it's a false dichotomy to suggest we all have to pick sides. Most nations on Earth are still open to trade with Russia, some even defying the west to do so. Indeed for most nations the most notable thing about this war isn't that it's happening but how skewed the wests' response to it has been compared to how they've responded to so many other wars, including both ongoing ones (such as the one in Yemen) and of course their own. Even the supposed humanitarian claims of the west are undercut by how blatantly discriminatory that humanitarian response has been (Ukrainians v/s Syrians, etc.). As for China, it may seem logical to you for them to leave Taiwan as is. But Taiwan isn't as it was. The Chinese made the choice not to rock the boat long before this war, but the more involved the US gets with Taiwan the less logical that seems. As Russia and many other nations show, a country will always prioritize its own security. And China might tolerate Taiwan not being part of it, but they will NEVER tolerate Taiwan turning into yet another satellite center of American power. Ukraine was attacked when it said it was interested in NATO, the moment that Taiwan or America does something similarly provocative all bets are off. The more you try to use Taiwan to encircle China, the less secure it gets. It wouldn't be logical for them to act otherwise. The US has long since made itself an enemy of theirs, why would you allow your enemy to have forces just off your coast? Fyi the US had that done to them in Cuba, what was their response? To blockade, embargo and even try invading the island, and sanctioning it ever since. As the saying goes, it's not wise to poke a bear. Or a dragon. So stop poking already.
1
@rickjames18 'Cept that isn't my argument. Rather that's simply me pointing out that that's what the US does to all the people who seem to believe it serves some sort of higher calling. In other words, I'm just calling out the PR nonsense.
1
Bub American has propped up and/or set up plenty of totalitarian regimes itself. Stop falling for PR rhetoric.
1
Who exactly are the US navy protecting the market from by 'patrolling the seas' lol? Pirates? They're almost extinct, and well capable of being fended off by even 2nd world navies, no need for the US. Indeed the most famous ones in recent years - the Somalis - have been shut out by a multinational naval force. And you don't get to ask other countries to pay to implement YOUR agenda. That makes them little more than client states, and marks you even more nakedly as a hegemon. Other countries stepping up only means something if they get to pursue their own interests, else all it is is Americans spending less by palming off responsibility for maintaining their hegemony onto others.
1
No one appointed America as the world police fyi. America took that role onto itself, in order to cement its dominance. A true world police would be neutral and administered by the UN. China has neither expressed a desire nor has the capability to take on that role. Nor does it need to. The function of 'global policeman' is a cute story that the US tells itself in order to justify its hegemony.
1
Who exactly are the US navy protecting the market from by 'patrolling the seas' lol? Pirates? They're almost extinct, and well capable of being fended off by even 2nd world navies, no need for the US. Indeed the most famous ones in recent years - the Somalis - have been shut out by a multinational naval force. Meanwhile forcefully opening nations up is just war. And the US deliberately put itself at the heart of the global financial system, which has benefitted them enormously by allowing them to print infinite money. They don't have to be. The IMF's SDR's could just as well be the global reserve currency.
1
@jackm1758 Thanks for the recommendation.
1
@SaraSara-kr6sp Lol, more white man's burden self-serving rhetoric. Apparently trade is aid now. Keep telling yourself that sweetheart. In that case, I believe the UK owes us some $45 trillion dollars in reparations for its own development. Not sure how much they owe China, but likely a lot. So when can we expect our cheque? ;)
1